Tuesday, April 30, 2013

James Hoggan on the Polluted Public Square

The federal government has shut down the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy (NRTEE), significantly reduced environmental spending and demonized environmental NGO’s, but Canadians don’t seem to care.

How is it that scientific consensus tells us that we are destroying the planet, but we have been unable to galvanize public support to do anything about it?

Because facts don’t change minds.

James Hoggan, one of Canada’s most respected public relations professionals and founder of desmogblog, suggests we need to do a better job of fashioning a deeply moving public narrative, one that will speak to people’s values, and get them believing that they can make a difference.

In an inspiring and educational webinar this afternoon, Hoggan discussed some of the ideas in his upcoming book, The Polluted Public Square. In a world that is increasingly polarized, mistrustful and inattentive, the rules of communication are different. We have to learn how to tell our own story, to construct a narrative, not just a message.

Although peppered with quotes and ideas from notable thinkers as diverse as Thich Naht Hanh
and Dan Kahan , Hoggan focuses on the work of Marshall Ganz , a Harvard educator who teaches, researches, and writes on leadership, organization and strategy in social movements, civic associations, and politics.

The three elements of the Ganzian public narrative are the story of self- a call to leadership, the story of us - shared values and shared experiences, and the story of now- strategy and action. These combine to create purpose, commitment and urgency. The narrative is not about facts, it’s about what our values call us to do.

I cannot do justice to all the concepts presented in this webinar, but following up on these ideas will be thought provoking and rewarding. To think about communication in a movement building context. To design a powerful narrative that will change behaviour. James Hoggan has pointed us in the right direction.

You can watch a replay of the webinar on the Sustainability Network site.

Friday, April 26, 2013

Carbon emissions: how beef farmers can learn from the car industry

Reposted from the Guardian Sustainable Business blog, Thursday April 25th, 2013

The automotive industry has been focused on reducing its environmental impact for years but red meat producers are only just waking up to the challenge. Cattle farmers need to seize the environmental agenda and show that the red meat industry can be sustainable.

When is a cow like a car? It may sound like a joke, but the answer could be serious for meat producers. Red meat is suffering from a wave of bad press. Shoppers' confidence in beef products has been knocked by the horsemeat scandal, which has increased awareness of high prices. Concerns are also emerging about the environmental impact of rearing cattle and sheep for consumption. As those fears combine, there's a risk that eating red meat will become decreasingly popular. In a competitive market, red meat producers must take action to avoid more negative comparisons with pork and chicken, which both tend to have a lower carbon footprint.

If the red meat industry wants to thrive, it should take a tip from a very different sector, which has been facing a similar challenge for years – the automotive industry. Car makers are tackling the twin realities of rising fuel costs and government emission reduction legislation to combat climate change. And it is meeting these challenges through innovation.

 In the past decade, the average CO2 emissions from a new car's exhaust pipe has been slashed by 17% according to the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders. That's mainly the result of incrementally tougher legislation and rising prices pushing for more efficient engines, and innovations such as electric cars or hybrids that partially run on batteries. These savings have emerged through a close examination of every process involved in producing a car and every aspect of a vehicle's workings. The meat industry must take the same road.

Analysis of the carbon footprint of farming has revealed about 30% is made up of carbon emissions related to beef production come from the use of fertiliser on fields and a further 40% comes from methane produced by animals' belches, which as a contributor to climate change is 21 times more powerful than carbon dioxide. The rest comes from fertiliser production, fuel, electricity and deforestation resulting from cattle farming.

Over the past five years, the Carbon Trust has been helping a number of organisations investigate the carbon footprint of livestock on farms. Thousands of farmers have been involved in the largest such programme in the world to date. One example is Ireland's food board, Bord Bia, which has developed tools to assess beef farm emissions and also the carbon emissions generated between the farm gate and the boning hall, where meat is prepared for distribution. Its aim is to help farmers and processors identify carbon hotspots where potential improvements may be possible. Lamb farmers stand to benefit from a similar approach through the work of the English beef and lamb organisation Eblex, which has recently released a tool to help farmers measure their carbon.

The next crucial step is understanding how to tackle those emissions. This is no esoteric project. As the automotive industry has demonstrated, being more carbon efficient often means removing unnecessary costs. Better knowledge could drive new ways of working and help farmers cope with the rising price of animal feed and growing consumer environmental concerns.

One of the first companies to take on the challenge is GrowHow, the UK's only major fertiliser supplier. The Cheshire-based company has set out to differentiate itself from rivals by measuring and managing its carbon footprint. Part of that process involves working with farmers to help them use fertiliser more efficiently and effectively, cutting their costs and improving yields. GrowHow's activities could have a major impact on the environmental footprint of the meat.

Financial benefits and efficiency go hand in hand. A study of 60 beef and sheep farms carried out for Eblex found that, for every 1kg cut in carbon emissions per kg of liveweight lamb, farmers increased profit margins by 28p. For beef an increase of 50p in profit margin for every 5kg cut in carbon emissions per kg of meat was possible. Studies show that compared to pork and chicken, there is a wide gap between the best and worst beef and lamb footprints – up to 10-fold. This is due in part to the wider variety of farm situations but does also suggests scope for significant efficiency savings.

Some of the changes required to improve profits are quite simple. The Carbon Trust has estimated that almost immediate energy savings of up to 20% can be made at most processing plants through straightforward management or system improvements. For example, reminding staff to switch off unused equipment or insulating pipes can really make a difference.

More technical research is examining how to reduce the emissions from belching cows and sheep. At the moment, relatively little is known about cows' digestive systems but more investment in this area could help develop new feeds which could dramatically reduce the environmental impact. Better herd management and selective breeding may also have a role. Even basics such as improving animal health can mean that fewer animals are required to achieve the same level of production.

Retailers and the catering industry need to play their part to increase investment in innovation. Long-term contracts and financial support can help farmers commit the upfront investment that will secure the future of the UK red meat industry to the financial and environmental benefit of the whole supply chain. And let's not forget that consumer tastes may continue to evolve, with some making conscious purchasing choices based on environmental and sustainability factors in the provenance or production of their food.

Government must set appropriate policy to bring about change and secure the funds to implement it. It's possible that the latest round of common agricultural policy negotiations, for example, could secure funding for more research on the emissions behind red meat production and the best way forward.

Investment in research and development right through the meat supply chain is required to seize the environmental agenda and show that red meat can play a part in a sustainable economy. Car makers have shown us the road map, now the whole red meat industry needs to work together and put its foot on the accelerator.

Martin Barrow is head of footprinting at the Carbon Trust.
This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. Become a GSB member to get more stories like this direct to your inbox

Wednesday, April 24, 2013

Barrick Gold shareholders reject say on pay resolution

Barrick Gold became just the second Canadian company to lose a say on pay vote, as shareholders rejected an executive compensation resolution at the company's annual general meeting in Toronto on Wednesday. 

The rejection was viewed as a condemnation of Barrick’s board of directors, which last year agreed to pay US$17-million to co-chairman John Thornton, including a US$11.9-million signing bonus.

Last week, a group of seven institutional investors put out a press release outlining their concern over the decision to award the bonus payment to Thornton.

 “This amount, for a signing bonus for a co-chairman of the board is, to our knowledge, unprecedented in Canada and is in addition to other compensation for the year for a total package of $17 million in 2012,” the release stated. “This compensation is inconsistent with the governance principle of pay-for-performance and is therefore disproportionate and sets a troubling precedent in Canadian capital markets.”

Signatories to the release included Quebec’s Caisse de depot et placement, the B.C. Investment Management Corporation and the Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board.

The compensation vote is non-binding, but Barrick CEO Jamie Sokalsky said that management would “carefully consider” the views of shareholders. The percentage figures for the vote were not provided.

“I think it’s a bit more than symbolic,” Barry Allan, senior mining analyst at Mackie Research Capital told the Financial Post. “It’s certainly a statement about what is appropriate executive compensation as seen by the Canadian marketplace, saying basically [the salary] is not really performance driven which has been an endemic problem, particularly in the gold mining industry.”

Thursday, April 11, 2013

BCE facing resolution on gender diversity

Vancity Investment Management has filed a shareholder resolution on gender diversity and the UN Women's Empowerment Principles with telecom giant BCE. 

The resolution, filed on behalf of the IA Clarington Inhance Monthly Income SRI Fund, asks BCE's board of directors to undertake a review of BCE diversity policies and initiatives, using the UN Women's Empowerment Principles as guidance, to identify and address gaps or inadequacies.

"As a signatory to the UN Global Compact, BCE Inc. has an opportunity to bring greater visibility to this initiative, increase the company's profile on diversity initiatives, gain competitive advantage in the market for talent and further strengthen the company's position as a socially responsible corporation," says Vancity's proxy alert on the resolution.

The resolution also asks BCE to consider endorsing the CEO Statement of Support for the Empowerment Principles.

CEOs from more than 400 companies have endorsed the principles, however no CEO from a Canadian publicly traded company has signed the statement of support. "Signing and endorsing the Principles will allow BCE to demonstrate leadership in this area and help distinguish the company," Vancity says.

In the 2013 Management Information Circular, BCE responds to the diversity proposal by listing a number of initiatives and programs including support for the UN Global Compact and concludes by stating:

"We believe BCE has a strong corporate responsibility program, addressing and promoting diversity in our business practices, governance commitments and programs that support the intent of the UN Women's Empowerment Principles."

However, the board has recommended voting against the proposal, which goes to a shareholder vote at BCE's annual general meeting on May 9.